If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
I don't get the reason for the Cozy or the Velocity (which isn't selling
anyway) from the standpoint of speed, comfort, etc. The $$$ come out the same for the most part and you don't have composite issues or trouble getting things fixed. Pusher/tractor preferences aside, am I missing something that would or does make one of the canards a better purchase? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:35:13 -0400, Linton Yarbrough
wrote: I don't get the reason for the Cozy or the Velocity (which isn't selling anyway) from the standpoint of speed, comfort, etc. The $$$ come out the same for the most part and you don't have composite issues or trouble getting things fixed. Pusher/tractor preferences aside, am I missing something that would or does make one of the canards a better purchase? not necessarily. you only get the performance figures *after* you've built the design and flown it. aviation is littered with designs that looked promising but werent. Stealth Pilot |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
On Sun, 04 May 2008 23:12:53 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:35:13 -0400, Linton Yarbrough wrote: I don't get the reason for the Cozy or the Velocity (which isn't selling anyway) from the standpoint of speed, comfort, etc. The $$$ come out the same for the most part and you don't have composite issues or trouble getting things fixed. Pusher/tractor preferences aside, am I missing something that would or does make one of the canards a better purchase? not necessarily. you only get the performance figures *after* you've built the design and flown it. aviation is littered with designs that looked promising but werent. Stealth Pilot To make matters worser, I can't build one so I have to take someone else's work. but the numbers of successful Cozys is a testament to the design. plus, you get to install a rotary-Wankel; this is good? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
"Linton Yarbrough" wrote in message
... On Sun, 04 May 2008 23:12:53 +0800, Stealth Pilot wrote: On Sat, 3 May 2008 12:35:13 -0400, Linton Yarbrough wrote: I don't get the reason for the Cozy or the Velocity (which isn't selling anyway) from the standpoint of speed, comfort, etc. The $$$ come out the same for the most part and you don't have composite issues or trouble getting things fixed. Pusher/tractor preferences aside, am I missing something that would or does make one of the canards a better purchase? not necessarily. you only get the performance figures *after* you've built the design and flown it. aviation is littered with designs that looked promising but werent. Stealth Pilot To make matters worser, I can't build one so I have to take someone else's work. but the numbers of successful Cozys is a testament to the design. plus, you get to install a rotary-Wankel; this is good? I dunno. For an assortment of reasons, I have not been hanging around the local airport for the past couple of years. But the one builder that I knew who actually started flying a Wankel powered Cozy MkIV finally gave up and switched to a Lycoming O-360. From what I have heard, he was unsuccessful at cooling the Wankel; but the Lycoming is running without problems. The only recommendations that I can make are to look/ask on rec.aviation.homebuilt and also on the canard forum. (I have forgoten what the canard forum is really called and/or where it is located, but someone on R.A.H will be sure to know.) Peter |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
Linton Yarbrough wrote:
To make matters worser, I can't build one so I have to take someone else's work. but the numbers of successful Cozys is a testament to the design. plus, you get to install a rotary-Wankel; this is good? The Cozy and the velocity were designed and intended to be used with a "certified" horizontally opposed air cooled engine. Some enterprising experimenters have used the rotary/wankel engine, with varying degrees of success. Dave |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
Peter Dohm wrote:
But the one builder that I knew who actually started flying a Wankel powered Cozy MkIV finally gave up and switched to a Lycoming O-360. From what I have heard, he was unsuccessful at cooling the Wankel; but the Lycoming is running without problems. That was Buly Aliev.. He was ready to FLY not to keep troubleshooting. Cooling is a critical issue in a pusher, and you have to make changes from stock cowling to really cool a wankel properly John Slade has been flying his for 2 years or so, and while not perfect is doing pretty good. www.canardaviation.com is his page. There is a forum to be linked to from there as well. Another forum, run by Jon Matcho (building, not flying) is Canardzone at www.canardzone.com If you are truly interested in rotary engines, check out Tracy Crook's website, at www.rotaryaviation.com. There are two rotary listservs... One is moderated and EDITED by Paul Lamar, an afficianado engineer who has not yet built nor flown a rotary powered aircraft, and tends to be more theory than practice, but highly technical at times. I unsubscribed from his list years ago and haven't missed much; folks who disagree with his findings are summarily dismissed. The other is The FlyRotary listserv where you will find the majority of folks who are building or have successfully started and flown homebuilt rotary aircraft. www.flyrotary.com All are welcome. Webbased archives available. Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
"Dave S" wrote in message ... Peter Dohm wrote: But the one builder that I knew who actually started flying a Wankel powered Cozy MkIV finally gave up and switched to a Lycoming O-360. From what I have heard, he was unsuccessful at cooling the Wankel; but the Lycoming is running without problems. That was Buly Aliev.. He was ready to FLY not to keep troubleshooting. Cooling is a critical issue in a pusher, and you have to make changes from stock cowling to really cool a wankel properly John Slade has been flying his for 2 years or so, and while not perfect is doing pretty good. www.canardaviation.com is his page. There is a forum to be linked to from there as well. Another forum, run by Jon Matcho (building, not flying) is Canardzone at www.canardzone.com If you are truly interested in rotary engines, check out Tracy Crook's website, at www.rotaryaviation.com. There are two rotary listservs... One is moderated and EDITED by Paul Lamar, an afficianado engineer who has not yet built nor flown a rotary powered aircraft, and tends to be more theory than practice, but highly technical at times. I unsubscribed from his list years ago and haven't missed much; folks who disagree with his findings are summarily dismissed. The other is The FlyRotary listserv where you will find the majority of folks who are building or have successfully started and flown homebuilt rotary aircraft. www.flyrotary.com All are welcome. Webbased archives available. Dave Yes, that's true; www.canardaviation.com snd www.canardzone.com are the sites I was thinking of. Peter |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
To make matters worser, I can't build one so I have to take someone else's work. but the numbers of successful Cozys is a testament to the design. plus, you get to install a rotary-Wankel; this is good? How can a Wankel be good? Terrible fuel economy. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
Newps wrote:
To make matters worser, I can't build one so I have to take someone else's work. but the numbers of successful Cozys is a testament to the design. plus, you get to install a rotary-Wankel; this is good? How can a Wankel be good? Terrible fuel economy. A turbocharged rotary engine runs about 0.50- 0.55 Lbs/hp/hr BSFC A normally aspirated rotary engine runs about 0.45-0.50 lbs/hp/hr BSFC An air cooled lycoming runs 0.40-0.45 lbs/hp/hr BSFC when run LEAN OF PEAK. The rotary can use auto gas (including ethanol as an oxygenate) as well as the blue 100LL. The lycoming for the most part can only use 100LL, unless in experimental, or you can guarantee the mogas is alcohol free. The rotary is SLIGHTLY less fuel efficient than a normally aspirated lycoming engine when the lyc is tuned properly and run LOP. Being able to use car gas in a rotary obliterates any cost penalty on that marginal fuel economy issue. Cost per mile is cheaper in the rotary. And it can be rebuilt for less than the cost of ONE new lycoming jug, or replaced for the cost of 3 new jugs. Do the math yourself and you will see. Not so terrible now, is it? Dave |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Canard or Mooney
"Dave S" wrote The rotary is SLIGHTLY less fuel efficient than a normally aspirated lycoming engine when the lyc is tuned properly and run LOP. Being able to use car gas in a rotary obliterates any cost penalty on that marginal fuel economy issue. Cost per mile is cheaper in the rotary. And it can be rebuilt for less than the cost of ONE new lycoming jug, or replaced for the cost of 3 new jugs. Do the math yourself and you will see. Not so terrible now, is it? Not so bad, if you can figure out how to keep the oil and water cool enough, and keep the exhaust pipes from melting, and radiating all of the heat to the cowling. (which if it fiberglass, will tend to make it get soft as play-dough) Hint: almost all of the lost fuel economy is lost in the form of lots of heat radiating from the engine, mainly the exhaust gasses. -- Jim in NC |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canard or Mooney | Linton Yarbrough | Piloting | 18 | May 21st 08 09:54 PM |
Aircraft ID? canard biz plane | Ron Hardin | General Aviation | 5 | October 1st 06 09:55 PM |
Canard Rotor/Wing | Eric Moore | Military Aviation | 0 | December 14th 03 04:39 AM |
Dumb Canard Question. | Russell Kent | Home Built | 39 | October 19th 03 03:25 PM |
Question - Regarding Canard Pushers... | Tilt | Home Built | 33 | August 10th 03 11:07 AM |